TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Petitioner on24th October 2007. These goods which were heavy duty AA pencil batteries were imported by the Petitioner by a bill of entry dated24th October 2007. Provisional release of the seized goods was ordered pending completion of investigations subject to fulfillment of the following conditions : (i) Deposit of anti-dumping duty, which works out to be Rs. 34,01,254/-; (ii) Bond for 100% of the value of the goods, and (iii) Bank guarantee for amount of Rs. 19,03,200/- which is equivalent to 50% of the differential duty. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner in the writ petition was that the above conditions were harsh. The prayer, therefore, was that the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to dispose of the seized goods as they were perishable. It was pleaded : 'at the end of the day in the event of confiscation the department or government is not likely to get anything nor would I gain anything'. Attention of the department was drawn to the circular dated20th February 2006which laid down the guidelines for the valuation and disposal by auction-cum-tender of the seized, confiscated and time-expired goods in terms of Sections 150 and 72(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. This Court was not satisfied with the above reply and consequently the following order was passed on18th March 2010: "1. This petition is directed against an order dated17th March 2008of 'provisional release' passed by the Assistant Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the issue of sale of the seized goods on7th August 2008. 6. Mr. Handoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner further points out that in the meanwhile on 29th January 2010 the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi has now passed a final adjudication order confiscating the goods (which were purportedly sold on 7th August 2008). He has imposed a penalty on the Petitioner and raised a demand of more than Rs. 50 lakhs. 7. This Court requires Mr. Wadhwani, Assistant Commissioner (Disposal), Office of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad to file a further affidavit explaining why the facts as regards the sale of the seized goods on7th August 2008have not been placed before this Court. He is directed to present p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o why this was not done. 8. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents draws attention of the Court to Para 3.15 of the said circular which dispenses with the detailed procedure set out in Paras 3.1 to 3.14 of the said circular in the event that the goods are 'disposed of by sale to NCCF'. Referring to the document which shows the sale of the seized goods to the NCCF, it is submitted that there is absolutely no basis in doubting the said sale as it is to a government controlled organisation. He further points out that even according to the Petitioner, the invoice value of the imported goods was $ 17,000 and, therefore, the amount for which the goods were sold to the NCCF i.e. Rs. 10,26,000/- was much higher and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner was itself keen that the goods which were perishable in nature should be disposed of in accordance with the Circular dated20th February 2006.Para3.15 of the said circular dispenses with the detailed procedure set out in the circular in the event the goods are sold to the NCCF. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality having been committed by the Respondents in disposing of the seized goods during the pendency of this petition. 11. The subsequent developments in the case have rendered the petition infructuous. It is not possible to grant any of the reliefs sought in the writ petition. However, it is directed that the amount recovered from the sale of the seized goods should be kept by the Respondents in a....